FCC Commish defends ethics after taking Comcast/NBC lobbyist job

FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker is defending herself against charges that she has improperly benefited from her support of the massive Comcast/NBC buyout back in January. Attwell Baker last week announced plans to join Comcast as a top DC lobbyist for the company.

In an editorial last week, the New York Times said that "Ms. Baker’s swift shift from regulator to lobbyist for the regulated will only add to Americans’ cynicism about their government. The fact that it is legal and that she is just one of many doesn’t make it better."

"Until late this spring, my plan was to seek renomination for a second term as Commissioner," Attwell Baker said in a statement on Friday. "That was true all through the winter during consideration of the Comcast/NBCUniversal transaction and in the months after it was completed."

But when opportunity knocks, you have to open the door:

Not once in my entire tenure as a Commissioner had anyone at Comcast or NBCUniversal approached me about potential employment. When this opportunity became available in mid-April, I made a personal decision that I wanted to give it serious consideration.

Therefore, I immediately sought counsel from the General Counsel of the FCC, and recused myself on April 18th from any matters involving Comcast or NBCUniversal. I have not only complied with the legal and ethical laws, but I also have gone further. I have not participated or voted any item, not just those related to Comcast or NBCUniversal, since entering discussions about an offer of potential employment. Because of this, I plan to depart the Commission as soon as I am able to ensure an orderly wind-down of my office. I will of course comply with all government ethics and Obama pledge restrictions going forward.

Attwell Baker is one of two Republican commissioners at the FCC, so her departure should produce a new Republican nominee in the next couple of months that will maintain the 3-2 slant of the Commission. Democrat Michael Copps is also expected to end his run at the FCC later this year. Given his near legendary status as the Grumpy Old Man of the FCC, it's hard to imagine Copps cashing in big on his FCC service, but we're curious to see where Commissioners like McDowell, Clyburn, and Genachowski land once their tenure is up.

In January 18th, 2011 the FCC and the United States Department of Justice allowed Comcast to buy NBC Universal. Michael Copps was the only commissioner of the FCC to vote against the merge.[2]

He said[3]:

I searched in vain for the benefits (...) Pardon me, but a deal of this size should be expected to yield more than the limited benefits cited. (...)

In sum, this is simply too much, too big, too powerful, too lacking in benefits for American consumers and citizens.... I would be true to neither the statute nor to everything I have fought for here at the Commission over the past decade if I did not dissent from what I consider to be a damaging and potentially dangerous deal (..) At the end of the day, the public interest requires more-much more-than it is receiving. The Comcast-NBCU joint venture opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet. The potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, access fees to reach end users, and a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real.

The Comcast-NBCU joint venture opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet. The potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, access fees to reach end users, and a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real.

Well, we could nationalize all long distance fibre. We paid for much of it anyway.

This is one more sordid instance of Government regulators leaving their government jobs to take high paying positions with industries they formerly regulated. While it may be legally correct, ethically and morally it is wrong, and if these people can't see that then they place themselves in the same category as those bankers who made fortunes lending money to people who couldn't afford to borrow and put the world in a deep recession. Most of them were "Legal" too but ethics and morality was definitely missing.

"A lot of these people came from industry to work in government. 2 years is a long time to be out of the business. That said, I think a year would be appropriate. "

No.

If you work for the government in a regulatory role, and then leave that job, you should not be allowed to work as a lobbyist in the same industry you were previously regulating. Ever. You can work in the industry, but you don't get to be a lobbyist. Or "advise" lobbyists. You don't get to assist with making policy.

Comcast gets a good deal here even her hiring had nothing to do with the Comcast/NBC deal. Who better to hire as a lobbyist than someone who knows all of the ins and outs of the system and is on a first name basis with the very people she is hired to persuade?

Baker gets a good deal in that she works in the same place with many of the same people, but gets paid a substantial amount more.

The only people who could possibly lose in this situation are the American public...

I found this position opened up, and when I applied for it, there was a great "hey, you know I *DID* scratch your back*, and to my surprise I got the job and a great big salary bump! Who'd have thought it?!?

Attwell Baker is one of two Republican commissioners at the FCC, so her departure should produce a new Republican nominee in the next couple of months that will maintain the 3-2 slant of the Commission.

I must admit, I don't know how the FCC nomination process works. Are there specific slots for each party? Because I don't see why a Republican departing when a Democrat is president should otherwise maintain the number of Rs and Ds on the commission. Unless there's a rule forcing Obama to nominate a Republican, I would think that he would nominate a Democrat to replace here. Plus, it only goes through the Democratic held Senate.

Considering the standard benefits of such stations, I don't see how anyone can honestly work in a position that creates the rules and then slip out and get right into the very industry they just helped shape. I agree that 2 years isn't the right amount of time for them to wait, but i wouldn't say LESS time is needed, but perhaps more.

There are some laws passed that may not affect an industry for as much as five years or so. Someone slipping into the industry's private sector before then could stand to be on the leading edge of the wave when it washes over the shores at the end of that time.

At that point, you might as well just toss your hands up in the air and allow for insider trading - this is almost as bad.

All that being said, am I shocked or surprised this goes on? No, this is our fine government at work - destroying the country and making themselves rich - one deal at a time.

I can't fault anyone for trying to advance their career. Generally, we all do it, and I understand that when an opportunity appears, you sometimes have to go for it in spite of potential issues.

But I can't bring myself to believe that the job offer appeared at random; Comcast just got a positive vote from her, and then didn't take that into consideration when offering her a lobbying job? The way that the American people are going to look at this is that, while she may not have been approached regarding employment, she knows how the game is played. Sure, they never talked about it, and she followed all the rules before and after the offer. But it was understood anyway that an offer might be made if she played her cards right, and knowing the loopholes in the rules is almost a prerequisite for government service.

"A lot of these people came from industry to work in government. 2 years is a long time to be out of the business. That said, I think a year would be appropriate. "

No.

If you work for the government in a regulatory role, and then leave that job, you should not be allowed to work as a lobbyist in the same industry you were previously regulating. Ever. You can work in the industry, but you don't get to be a lobbyist. Or "advise" lobbyists. You don't get to assist with making policy.

That just guarantees that government regulators will know nothing about the regulations in the industry with which they work. I would much rather have educated regulators that go back into the industry after a year or two and start affecting policy adversely, than monkeys throwing darts at the policy dart board.

The chaos and poor policy that would come out of the latter option would be atrocious and likely decimate every industry you can think of.

Attwell Baker is one of two Republican commissioners at the FCC, so her departure should produce a new Republican nominee in the next couple of months that will maintain the 3-2 slant of the Commission.

I must admit, I don't know how the FCC nomination process works. Are there specific slots for each party? Because I don't see why a Republican departing when a Democrat is president should otherwise maintain the number of Rs and Ds on the commission. Unless there's a rule forcing Obama to nominate a Republican, I would think that he would nominate a Democrat to replace here. Plus, it only goes through the Democratic held Senate.

It's an appointment/approval system similar to the Supreme court. The President chooses the chairman out of the five, but only three of the commissioners can be from the same party.

Since there are three Democratic comms now, a fourth Dem could not be nominated for the position. Therefore it's likely that a Repub would be chosen. The President could nominate an Independent, Green, or Libertarian, but the Senate would likely not approve that.

The Comcast-NBCU joint venture opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet. The potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, access fees to reach end users, and a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real.

Well, we could nationalize all long distance fibre. We paid for much of it anyway.

Nationalize? That sounds like SOCIALISM to me, sonny, and we don't take kindly to that in are country.

Honestly, this is why there really needs to be a law that if you take a government job which affects rules/policy, you shouldn't be allowed to work in that industry for 2 years. PERIOD.

A lot of these people came from industry to work in government. 2 years is a long time to be out of the business. That said, I think a year would be appropriate.

The appearance of impropriety is unfortunate, but if you want to attract the best people to work in government, you don't want to be making restrictions on their careers. Since an FCC commissioner (I believe) serves at the pleasure of the president, they don't exactly have job security. If you compound that with restrictions on post-government job opportunity, and not very high pay, you're not going to get a wealth of good candidates clamoring to be FCC commissioners.

Isn't she on her way to being a private citizen? The mere fact that she feels like she has to defend herself speaks volumes all on it's own.

You ma'am are morally bankrupt...

If she didn't respond to the criticisms, she'd be another arrogant republican. I'm actually glad she is responding as it keeps the discussion open, but it's not going to help her (drawing attention to it never helps anyone and most people have made up their mind on the matter), but she seems to actually want to change perceptions

There are a lot of accounting rules about the perception of independence. Up here in Canada, we can't do anything that breaches even the perception of independence, regardless of whether we were actually independent or not. I think the same rules need to be applied here. She may not directly lobby for Comcast for the legally required time and she may have genuinely had no interest in working for them until the position came up, but shit lady, this looks terrible. If you didn't realise that this was going to happen I have to wonder how the hell you became an FCC commissioner.

Lobbying is, to me, completely antithetical to a proper representative democracy in the first place. I don't care what kind of time limits you try and soften it with. Lobbying should be completely dismantled and banned. It's the main cog in the gears of the corporatocracy, and removing it would be a big step in restoring government to something worth a crap.So, the moment she announces she's becoming a lobbyist, I consider her the enemy, callously ca$hing in at the expense of the American public in general.

I must admit, I don't know how the FCC nomination process works. Are there specific slots for each party? Because I don't see why a Republican departing when a Democrat is president should otherwise maintain the number of Rs and Ds on the commission. Unless there's a rule forcing Obama to nominate a Republican, I would think that he would nominate a Democrat to replace here. Plus, it only goes through the Democratic held Senate.

they can only have 3 members from the same political party, so the other 2 are picked by that party's congressional leadership and then nominated by the president.

I might consider the story more closely if she'd provide proof of the company's initial contact (something of this nature would require a written chain, electronic or paper) versus her own actions record. But simple denial won't do.

The best govts are the ones that dont depend on the goodness of people to keep their officials (elected or appointed) in line, cause you know what? Most people will steal and lie if they know they can get away with it and the reward is big enough.

So she hasn't done any FCC work since even considering leaving her post...and she doesn't find it odd that someone who has been collecting a check for nothing decides to leave for the largest media conglemerate in the US thanks to the commission she worked for?

If the DOJ won't do the diligence on a mega merger like Comast/NBC then at least do the diligence on someone like this.

I don't think elected officials who are either voted out of office or resign should be able to hold lobbyist jobs. It's just too corrupt at face value. Where there's smoke, there is fire.

Not once in my entire tenure as a Commissioner had anyone at Comcast or NBCUniversal approached me about potential employment. When this opportunity became available in mid-April, I made a personal decision that I wanted to give it serious consideration.

My bullshit detector is going off the scale. Lady you are morally corrupt. Would I do the same thing while in your position? NO. Money isn't everything to me. I would rather be dirt ass poor than a sell-out.(edited)

Quote:

ShlomoAbraham wrote:

The appearance of impropriety is unfortunate, but if you want to attract the best people to work in government, you don't want to be making restrictions on their careers.

I would argue with you on that point that the "best" wouldn't do it if they couldn't get cushy jobs with the same industry they had regulated.

Its doesn't have to be written / verbal agreement to be an agreement. Unfortunately, there is an unwritten agreement between regulators and the companies they regulate:

If you pass a law / regulator that favors us (and it doesn't matter if its bad for the general public - most of the time it is), we will then compensate you at some later date for it. Such as giving you a job offer, or a board position.

Companies know that if they don't keep their word, then politicians in the future won't pass favorable laws for them. But Comcast kept their unwritten word and hired her. So next time Comcast wants something, any politician knows that if they pass it for Comcast, they will get a job offer or some other form of highly paid compensation.

This is pathetic. We should vote out any politician that would even consider it, and this lady deserves to go to jail for the rest of her life.

Attwell Baker is one of two Republican commissioners at the FCC, so her departure should produce a new Republican nominee in the next couple of months that will maintain the 3-2 slant of the Commission.

I must admit, I don't know how the FCC nomination process works. Are there specific slots for each party? Because I don't see why a Republican departing when a Democrat is president should otherwise maintain the number of Rs and Ds on the commission. Unless there's a rule forcing Obama to nominate a Republican, I would think that he would nominate a Democrat to replace here. Plus, it only goes through the Democratic held Senate.

The FCC maintains a 3-2 split favoring whatever party holds the White House. I don't believe it's actually a law, but it's the way things operate in practice.